IntroductoryThemapappended to this volume is (with the exception of the red lines and red lettering upon it) a reproduction of a portion of the map relating to the explorations and surveys of Dr. Strong, Mr. Monckton and Captain Barton, which was published in theGeographical Journalfor September, 1908, and the use of which has been kindly permitted me by the Royal Geographical Society. I have eliminated the red route lines which appear in the original map, so as to avoid confusion with the red lines which I have added. The unbroken red lines and the red lettering upon my map are copied from a map, also kindly placed at my disposal, which has been recently prepared by Father Fillodean of the Mission of the Sacred Heart, and these lines mark roughly what the Fathers of the Mission believe to be the boundaries of the several linguistic areas within the district covered by their map. It will be observedthat some of these lines are not continued so as to surround and complete the definition of the areas which they indicate; but this defect is unavoidable, as the Fathers’ map only covered a relatively small area, and even in that map the lines were not all carried to its margin. It will also be noticed that, though the Fathers introduce the two names Oru Lopiku and Boboi as being linguistically distinct, they have not indicated the boundary line between the two areas. Father Egedi, however, informed me that this boundary passes along the ridge of hills south of the Ufafa river as far as Mt. Eleia, and thence along the Ukalama river to the Kuni boundary. The Ukalama river is not shown in the Geographical Society’s map; but I may say that it is shown in the Fathers’ map as rising in Mt. Eleia, and flowing thence in a south-easterly direction, and so joining the St. Joseph river close to Dilava. The broken red line upon my map does not appear in the Fathers’ map, but has been added by me to indicate what, I understand, the Fathers believe to be a continued boundary, so far as ascertained, of the Fuyuge linguistic area, called by them the Mafulu area, to which I am about to draw attention.The term Mafulu is the Kuni pronunciation of Mambule, which is the name, as used by themselves, of the people who live in a group of villages within and near the north-westerly corner of the area of the Fuyuge-speaking people, whose Papuan language, so far as ascertained, appears, subject to local dialectal differences, to be the same, and may, I was informed,be regarded as one common language throughout the Fuyuge area.The Fathers of the Mission have adopted the name Mafulu in a wider sense, as including all the people with whom they have come in contact of the Fuyuge-speaking area; and, though my investigations, which form the subject-matter of this book, have been conducted only in the neighbourhood of Mafulu itself, I was assured that, so far as the Fathers have been able to ascertain, all these Fuyuge people not only have similar languages, but also are substantially similar in physique and in culture. My observations concerning the Mafulu people may therefore, if this statement is correct, be regarded as applying, not only to the inhabitants of the portion of the north-westerly corner of the Fuyuge area in which the Mafulu group of villages is placed, but to those of the whole of the north-westerly portion of the area, and generally in a greater or less degree of accuracy to those of the northerly and north-easterly parts of the area, and possibly the southerly ones also.The boundaries of this Fuyuge-speaking area can hardly be regarded as definitely ascertained; and the discrepancies, even as regards the courses of the rivers and the positions of the mountains, which appear in the few available maps make it difficult to deal with the question. The area, so far as actually ascertained by the Fathers of the Mission, roughly speaking, covers, and seems to extend also some distance to the south or south-west of a triangle, the western apex of which is the junction of the river Kea with theriver Aduala (a tributary of the St. Joseph),1whose north-eastern apex is Mt. Albert Edward, and whose south-eastern apex is Mt. Scratchley. It includes the valley of the Aduala river and its streams (except those flowing into it from the north in the region of the western apex of the triangle) within its northern boundary, and the valley of the upper Vanapa river and its rivers and streams in the neighbourhood of its eastern boundary; but this eastern boundary has been found to extend also so as to include the upper valley of the river Chirima. How far the area extends to the south or south-west of the triangle above mentioned appears to be uncertain.The linguistic area to the north of the Mafulu or Fuyuge people is that of the Ambo people, who are somewhat similar in appearance to the Mafulu, and whose language is also Papuan, and, though differing from the Mafulu language, is, I was told, somewhat similar to it in grammatical construction and as regards a few of its words. The area to the west is that of theKuni people, whose language is Melanesian, but whose ordinary modes of life are, I was informed, more like those of the Mafulu than are those of the Papuan-speaking Ambo. The areas to the east and south cannot be so definitely stated, but are dealt with below.As regards these Ambo people I may, in view of divergences of names which appear in maps, explain that Ambo is a contraction of Ambore, and is the name given to the people by their Mafulu neighbours, whilst Afoa is the name given to them by the Kuni people, and is adopted in the Geographical Society’s map.2As regards the Kuni people, their name is the one adopted by themselves.Concerning the boundaries of the Fuyuge linguistic area as above indicated, and the people whose districts adjoin that area, I propose here to draw attention to four names, and to refer to some observations bearing on the subject of the probable Fuyuge boundary which are to be found in existing literature.The term Kovio, though primarily the name of Mt. Yule, and properly applicable to the people living in the neighbourhood of that mountain, is now, I think, often used to express all the mountain tribes of the hinterland of the Mekeo and Pokau, and perhaps the Kabadi, districts. But the use of this name has not, I believe, been generally associated with any question of linguistics.The area in the map which is called by the FathersBoboi is occupied by people whose language, I was told by the Fathers, is Papuan, but is distinct from the languages of the Ambo and the Fuyuge areas.Kamaweka is a name which appears in several of Dr. Seligmann’s publications. It seems to have been originally used by Captain Barton to designate the natives of the district of which Inavaurene, to the north-east of the Mekeo plains, is the centre, but to have been afterwards regarded as a somewhat more general term; and I think Dr. Seligmann uses it in a very general sense, almost, if not quite, equivalent to the wide application above referred to of the term Kovio, and which might include the Papuan-speaking Boboi and Ambo people, and even perhaps the people of the northern Mafulu villages.3But here again the use of the name has, I think, no reference to linguistics.If the Fathers’ linguistic boundary lines are substantially correct, each of the two terms Kovio and Kamaweka, as now used, would appear to cover more than one linguistic area; and in any case these terms seem to have widened and to have become somewhat indefinite. It will be seen on reference to the map and to Father Egedi’s information as to the Oru Lopiku and Boboi boundaries that both Mt. Yule and Inavaurene are within the area which the Fathers call Oru Lopiku, but that Inavaurene is not far fromtheir Boboi area. I suggest that it would be convenient for the present, pending further investigation and delimitation on the spot, and until we know something of the difference between the languages of the Oru Lopiku and Boboi people, to adopt the term Kovio as a general name for, and confine it to, the two areas Boboi and Oru Lopiku; though for linguistic purposes the names Boboi and Oru Lopiku, which at present indicate very little to us, may eventually be accepted and come into general use.The Koiari people of the foothills and lateral spurs behind the Motu area, also referred to from time to time in Dr. Seligmann’s writings, must be eastern next door neighbours of the Fuyuge-speaking people, the western boundary of these Koiari being stated by him to be the Vanapa river,4and they being in fact regarded by him as being the eastern neighbours of the natives of “the mountains inland of Mekeo Nara and Kabadi,”5and being referred to by him as being the people from whose district the Kamaweka and Kuni are reached by “passing westward”—the word used is “eastward,” but this is obviously a printer’s error—“in the mountains, keeping roughly parallel with the coast.”6Turning to the question of the Fuyuge boundary, Dr. Strong says that the Fuyuge people occupy the upper waters of the St. Joseph river,7and he is quoted by Dr. Seligmann as having stated that the Afoalanguage “is spoken in the villages on Mt. Pizoko and the northern slopes of Mt. Davidson,” and that “the Afoa villages lie to the north of the Fuyuge-speaking communities, stretching westward for an unknown distance behind Mt. Davidson.”8If the information given to me verbally by the Fathers of the Mission of the Sacred Heart and the red linguistic boundary lines roughly drawn by them, and introduced into my map, be correct, these statements require modification, for according to the Fathers the Mafulu or Fuyuge-speaking area does not include any part of the St. Joseph river, as its extreme north-westerly corner lies to the east of the junction—close to the boundary line between the Afoa (Ambo) and the Kuni areas—of the rivers Alabula and Aduala, and Mt. Pizoko is within the Fuyuge area, and not within that of the Afoa, and Mt. Davidson is within the Boboi area. I think that, though the Fathers’ lines are admittedly not exact, they and the information supplied by the Fathers to me are likely to be more trustworthy in these respects, especially as regards boundaries near to the actual Mafulu villages, than the earlier statements of Dr. Strong, as they are the outcome of recent and careful investigation; and, as regards Mt. Pizoko, I may mention that Dr. Strong himself seems to have subsequently regarded that mountain as being within the Mafulu district,9which brings it into the Fuyuge area.The inclusion of the upper valley of the riverChirima within the Fuyuge or Mafulu-speaking area is perhaps surprising, as this valley is separated from the general Fuyuge area by one of the southern ridges of Mt. Albert Edward, and more or less so by the ridges of Mt. Stone Wigg and the Wharton range, and as the Chirima is a tributary flowing into the Mambare river, which is one of the great watercourses of Northern New Guinea. The Mafulu Fathers, however, had no doubt as to the correctness of the inclusion, which seems to open out the possibility of some, at all events, of the Fuyuge people having northern associations; and indeed Monseigneur de Boismenu told me that he believed that the Mafulu people were in touch with Northern New Guinea, and got some of their shell ornaments, or the shells from which they were made, from the northern coast.It is interesting, therefore, to turn for the purpose of comparison to the report of Mr. Monckton’s expedition to Mt. Albert Edward by way of the Upper Chirima valley in 190610and the illustrations accompanying it, with which I incorporate a description of the people of this valley given to Dr. Seligmann by Mr. Money, who was with Mr. Monckton.11From these it appears that the Upper Chirima people are short in stature and sturdily built. Both sexes wear the perineal band, the front of which is made (I am not sure whether this applies to women as well as to men) to bulge out by padding. In some cases the men’s hair is tied up in a bunch with string,and in others it is bound up in various styles with native cloth. Some of the men have their hair done up in small plaits over the forehead. All the above descriptions, except that of the padding of the band, are applicable to the Mafulu. Some of the Chirima houses have a curious apse-like roof projection over the front platform, which is a specially distinctive feature of a Mafulu house, and one with this projection figured by Mr. Monckton is indistinguishable from a typical Mafulu house. The Chirima people place the bodies of their dead on raised platforms, and apparently sometimes put the body of an infant on the platform erection of an adult, but below the latter. This also is a practice of the Mafulu; and, though the latter people confine platform burial (if such it may be called) to chiefs and their families and important persons, it is possible that some such limitation of the custom exists in the Chirima valley also, but did not come under Mr. Monckton’s notice. A burial platform figured by him might well be a Mafulu burial platform, except that the curious cone-shaped receptacle for the child is a form for which I cannot vouch as regards the Mafulu. The Chirima have a special and peculiar form of netting, which Mr. Monckton’s illustration shows to be identical with the special form of Mafulu netting. On the other hand, as regards the Chirima weapons, implements and utensils, a comparison of Mr. Monckton’s verbal descriptions and figures with what I have seen in Mafulu, and describe in this book, leads me to the conclusion that, though many of these are similar to those of Mafulu,some of them are different. As examples of this I may say that the drill implements of the Chirima people are very similar to, and their stone cloth-beaters appear to be identical with, those used by the Mafulu; whilst on the other hand their war bows are much longer,12and their method of producing fire seems to be totally different; also they apparently have bull-roarers, which to the best of my knowledge are unknown among the Mafulu. Again some of the Chirima weapons, as figured by Mr. Monckton, disclose ideas of artistic design, including that of the curved line and a rude representation of a man, which I have not met with among the Mafulu. As regards this last point I draw attention to Mr. Monckton’s figures of carving on a bow and on wooden clubs. I think, however, that in such matters as these local differences might well arise between people who are really more or less identical, especially if their respective districts are on opposite sides of the main mountain range of the country, and still more so if the people of one of the districts (in the present case I refer to the Chirima people) may perhaps have been subject to the influence of other people beyond them. As to this latter point, however, I should say that these Chirima people seem to be, so far as dress, ornaments, &c., are concerned, much nearer to the Mafulu than they are to the natives of the Mambare river itself, as described by Sir William Macgregor.13It is curiousalso that the dogs of the Chirima people are not yellow dingoes, but are black and white, as is the case in Mafulu.I notice that Dr. Seligmann suggests that these Chirima valley people are related to the natives of the neighbourhood of Mt. Yule,14a statement which, though probably intended broadly, is in accord with the suggestion that they are connected with the Mafulu-speaking people.The natives of Mt. Scratchley (apparently the eastern or south-eastern side), visited by Sir William Macgregor in 1896, appear from his description of them15to show a few points of resemblance to the Mafulu people. In particular I refer to their “dark bronze” colour, to the wearing by women of the perineal band (to which, however, is added a mantle and “in most cases” a grass petticoat, which is not done in Mafulu), to the absence of tattooing or cicatrical ornamentation, to their “large earrings made out of tails of lizards covered by narrow straps of palm leaves dyed yellow” (which, though not correctly descriptive of the Mafulu earring, is apparently something like it), to their use of pigs’ tails as ear ornaments, to their plaiting of the hair and the decoration of the plaited hair with teeth and shells, to their small charm bags and to the shortness of their bows. Also to the construction of their houses, with the roof carried down to the ground, with a fireplace about2 feet wide extending down the centre of the building from one end to the other, and having an inclined floor on each side, and especially to the curious apse-like roof projections in front of these houses (Dr. Haddon calls them “pent roofs”16), Sir William’s figure of which is, like that of the Chirima villages, identical, or nearly so, with that of a Mafulu house. But Sir William’s description of the physique of these Mt. Scratchley people and other matters make it clear, I think, that they belong to a type different from that of the Mafulu, though they must be next door neighbours of the Fuyuge-speaking people. Dr. Seligmann, in commenting upon this description of these people, expresses the opinion that they are Papuo-Melanesians.17The natives in the region of Mt. Musgrave and Mt. Knutsford, as described by Mr. Thomson,18appear, at all events so far as dress is concerned, to be utterly different from the Mafulu.Dr. Seligmann states that Dr. Strong has informed him that the southern boundary of the Fuyuge-speaking area is the Kabadi country,19and he had previously referred to Korona, immediately behind the Kabadi and Doura districts, as being within the area,20and, indeed, the Geographical Society’s map shows the Fuyuge area as at all events extending as far south as Korona. I do not know how far inland the Kabadiand Doura people extend; but I may say that the Mafulu Fathers expressed grave doubt as to the extension of the Fuyuge area so far south as is indicated by the map.If the Fuyuge area does in fact reach the Kabadi boundary, and if my notes on the Mafulu people are, as suggested, broadly descriptive of the natives of the whole Fuyuge area, there must be a very sudden and sharp differentiation, as the Kabadi people are apparently an offshoot from Mekeo,21with apparently other Papuo-Melanesian blood (especially Roro) introduced.22The contour and appearance of the country in the actual Mafulu district of the Fuyuge area is strikingly different from that of the immediately adjoining Kuni country, the sharp steep ridges and narrow deep-cut valleys of the latter, with their thick unbroken covering of almost impenetrable forest, changing to higher mountain ranges with lateral ridges among them, and with frequent gentle undulating slopes and wider and more open valleys; while, interspersed with the forests, are small patches and great stretches of grass land, sometimes thinly covered or scattered with timber and sometimes quite open and devoid of trees.23And thiscondition continues, I was told, over the greater part of the triangular area above referred to.Plates1and2give, I think, a fair illustration of what I mean, the steep contours and thickly wooded character of the foreground and nearer middle distance shown by Plate1being typical Kuni scenery, and the more open nature of the country displayed by Plate2and the comparative freedom from forest of its foreground being typical of the higher uplands of Mafulu.24It will be noticed that the physical character of the Mafulu country is more favourable to continued occupation than is that of the Kuni country; and it is a fact that the Mafulu people are not so restless and ready to move as are the Kuni folk; and, even when they do migrate, it is generally to a spot comparatively near to their old villages.The geological formation of the lower hills on which the actual Mafulu villages are placed and the intervening valleys is partly limestone; and I was told that limestone formation was also found further to the east.Throughout this book I shall use the term “Mafulu” as including, not only the little group of villages near the north-westerly corner of the Fuyuge linguistic area actually known by that name, but also the other groups of Fuyuge villages in the north-westernportion of that area; and, as above indicated, it is believed by the Fathers of the Mission that I should be substantially correct if I included the whole of the northern and north-eastern, and probably the southern portions of the known part of that area, and possibly the entire area.1The Geographical Society’s map used by me is somewhat confusing as regards the upper reaches of the St. Joseph or Angabunga river and the rivers flowing into and forming it. The Fathers’ map makes the St. Joseph river commence under that name at the confluence, at a point a little to the west of 8° 30′ S. Lat. and 147° E. Long., of the river Alabula (called in one of its upper parts Loloipa), flowing from the north, and the river Aduala, flowing from Mt. Albert Edward in the north-east; and this arrangement, which is practically in accord with a map appended to the British New GuineaAnnual Reportfor June, 1900, is, I think, probably the most suitable and correct one. The Aduala is the river the upper part of which is in the Geographical Society’s map called Angabunga. The Fathers’ map shows the river Kea flowing into the Aduala at a distance of about two miles above the confluence of the latter with the Alabula; but, according to the Report map, this distance is about 12 miles.2Note the change from the Mafulu (Papuan) pronunciationMambuleto the Kuni (Melanesian) pronunciationMafuluand the similar change from the MafuluAmboto the KuniAjoa.3See Dr. Seligmann’s “Hunterian Lecture” in theLancetfor February 17, 1906, p. 427; Seligmann and Strong in theGeographical Journalfor March, 1906, pp. 233 and 236; also Dr. Seligmann’s “Classification of the Natives of British New Guinea” in theJournal of the Royal Anthropological Institutefor December, 1909, p. 329.4Melanesians of British New Guinea, p. 29.5Ibid.p. 31.6Lancet, February 17, 1906, p. 427.7Geographical Journalfor September, 1908, p. 274.8Melanesians of British New Guinea, p. 32.9British New GuineaAnnual Reportfor June, 1906, p. 29.10British New GuineaAnnual Reportfor June 30, 1906, pp. 85 to 93.11Melanesians of British New Guinea, p. 33.12Apparently bows and arrows are not found among the tribes of the Lower Mambare river (Annual Reportfor June, 1897, Appendix C, p. 7.)13Annual Reportfor June, 1894, p. 32.14Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institutefor December, 1909, p. 329.15Annual Reportfor June, 1897, Appendix C, p. 7.16Geographical Journalfor October, 1900, p. 422.17Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institutefor December, 1909, p. 330.18British New Guinea, p. 94.19Melanesians of British New Guinea, p. 32.20Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institutefor December, 1909, p. 329.21Seligmann and Strong—Geographical Journalfor March, 1906, p. 232.22Seligmann’sMelanesians of British New Guinea, p. 27.23Dr. Strong has referred (Geographical Journalfor September, 1908, p. 272) to the considerable areas of open grass country at the source of the St. Joseph river; and in his remarks which appeared in theAnnual Reportfor June, 1906, p. 28, he referred to the same matter, and spoke of the valleys being for the most part less steep than those of the Kuni district.24I must state that Plate2represents a scene taken from a spot near to Deva-deva, which, though close to what is regarded as the boundary between the Kuni and Mafulu areas, is in fact just within the former. The general appearance of the scenery is, however, distinctly Mafulu.Physique and CharacterPhysique.The Mafulu people are of short stature, though perhaps a trifle taller than the Kuni.They are as a rule fairly strong and muscular in build, the women in particular having very strongly developed thighs; but, speaking generally, their limbs are more slender, and their general development is slighter, than is usually the case among the Roro and Mekeo people.They appear to be usually mesaticephalic, but to have a very marked tendency to brachycephaly.Their noses seemed to me to be generally strong, and of prominent size, varying considerably in width of bridge, but usually having rather widely distending nostrils; and sometimes the width of the nose was equal to its length, or nearly so.Referring to the above matters, the following are the results of twenty measurements of Mafulu men. These were obtained from men of upwards of six different communities or groups of villages, so as to avoid the possible misleading character of measurements made in only one village or group of villages, in which some family relationship between the personsmeasured might militate against the true average character of the figures obtained.No.Stature in cm.Length of head in cm.Breadth of head in cm.Cephalic indexCranial index (2 units deducted from cephalic index).Nose length in cm.Nose breadth in cm.Nasal index115018.514.779.577.54.94.489.8215518.815.180.378.34.84.8100.0315519.514.875.973.95.34.381.1415718.515.483.281.24.34.3100.0515318.914.677.275.24.84.491.7615118.614.376.974.94.93.877.6715119.315.278.876.85.44.481.5816319.414.574.772.75.64.478.6916218.815.280.978.95.34.075.51016317.415.186.884.85.54.683.61115518.014.077.875.85.34.483.01215717.414.683.981.94.64.087.01315819.714.875.173.15.34.381.11416017.914.480.478.45.14.384.31515317.714.783.181.15.24.178.81615618.514.880.078.05.54.581.81715217.714.984.282.25.64.071.41815418.614.980.178.15.24.586.51915017.815.285.483.44.93.979.62014718.814.577.175.14.63.882.6Analysing these figures, we get the following results:—Highest number.Lowest number.Average.Stature1163 cm.(64.2 ins.)147 cm.(57.9 ins.)155.1 cm.(61.1 ins.)Head length19.7 cm.17.4 cm.18.5 cm.Head breadth15.4 cm.14.0 cm.14.8 cm.Cephalic index86.874.780.0Cranial index84.872.778.0Nose length5.6 cm.4.3 cm.5.1 cm.Nose breadth4.8 cm.3.8 cm.4.3 cm.Nasal index100.071.484.32Number of cranial indices under 75= 4 (20 per cent.).Number of cranial indices between 75 and 80= 10 (50 per cent.).Number of cranial indices over 80= 6 (30 per cent.).There are a few points in connection with these figures to which I would draw attention. The very short man (No. 20—height, 147 cm.) has a cranial index of 75.1, on the border line between dolichocephaly and mesaticephaly. He has also a short nose (4.6 cm.), and is one of the two with the narrowest noses (3.8 c.m.). The very tall man (No. 8—height, 163 cm.) has a long head (19.4 cm.), and the lowest dolichocephalic cranial index of 72.7, and is one of two with the longest noses (5.6 cm.). The other very tall man (No. 10—height, 163 cm.) has one of the two shortest heads (17.4 cm.), and the highest brachycephalic cranial index of 84.8, and has a long nose (5.5 cm.) The man (No. 2) whose nasal index is 100 has the mesaticephalic cranial index of 78.3 (almost the average index). The other man (No. 4) whose nasal index is 100 has a head of exactly the average length (18.5 cm.) and the greatest breadth (15.4 cm.), and the brachycephalic cranial index of 81.2. The man (No. 17) with the lowest nasal index of 71.4 has a very short head (17.7 cm.), and the brachycephalic cranial index of 82.2.The following tables, however, illustrate the fact that the measurements of these twenty men do not appear to indicate, as regards them, any markedconnection between stature, cranial index, and nasal index.Order in stature (beginning with the shortest):20—1—19—6—7—17—5—15—18—2—3—11—16—4—12—13—14—9—8—10.Order in progress upwards of cranial indices:8—13—3—6–20—5—ll—7—1—16—18—2—14—9—15—4—12—17—19—10.Order in progress upwards of nasal indices:17—9—6—8—15—19—3—13—7—16—20—11—10—14—18—12—1—5—2—4.I brought home three Mafulu skulls, which Dr. Keith kindly had measured at the Royal College of Surgeons, with the following results3:—SkullLength in cm.Breadth in cm.Height in cm.Cranial Index.Proportion of height to length.A17.614.012.279.569.3B18.214.113.277.572.5C17.312.712.573.472.3It will be observed that the lowest of these three cranial indices is a trifle higher than the lowest of those of the head measurements, that the highest of them is much lower than the highest of those of the head measurements, and that their average (76.8) is a little below the average of those of the head measurements.Dr. Keith had further measurements made of theseskulls from the point of view of prognathism and characters of noses and orbits, with the following results:Skull.Basi-nasal length.Basi-alveolar length.Height of nose.Width of nose.Height of orbit.Width of orbit.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.mm.A9810248264035B999649254235C9710247263835Dr. Keith, referring to these skulls, says that they disclose relatively small brains, the cranial capacity of A being 1,230 c.c., that of B being 1,330 c.c., and that of C being 1,130 c.c. He compares these figures with the average cranial capacity of the male European, which he puts at 1,500 c.c.The eyes of the Mafulu people are dark brown and very bright. I never saw among them those oblique eyes, almost recalling the Mongolian, which, according to Dr. Seligmann, are found, though rarely only, on the coast,4and of which I saw many instances among the Kuni people.Their lips are usually not so thick as are those of the Mekeo and Roro people, and are generally finer and more delicate in shape.In view of their Papuan language I kept a sharp look out for the curious backward sloping foreheads and projecting brow ridges and Jewish-looking noses which are so often found among the Western Papuans; but, although I saw a few examples of these, they were rare, and I did not observe anynoticeable tendency in these directions in the faces of the people generally.5A curious characteristic with them is the big toe, which is usually much developed, and projects outwards at a larger angle than is the case with the Roro and Mekeo people, and is much used for holding on to roots, &c., whilst travelling along their rough mountain paths.Their general colour is a dark sooty brown, a trifle darker, perhaps, than that of the Kuni people, and contrasting forcibly with the varying shades of chocolate which you find among the Roro and Mekeo people. They are smooth-skinned.Their hair is frizzly, and generally dark brown, often quite dark, almost even approaching to black, and sometimes perhaps quite black. But it is frequently lighter; and indeed I was often, when observing men’s hair lit up by sunshine, impressed by the fact that its brown colour was not even what we should in Europe call dark.6I often saw marked variations in the depth of hair colour on the head of the same individual. I saw no examples of the comparatively straight or curly type of hair which is found in the Pokau district and elsewhere.7Plate3gives front and side views of the mesaticephalic (almost brachycephalic) skull A and Plate4gives similar views of the dolichocephalic skull C. All the photographs were made as nearly as possible exactly half the sizes of the originals; but the photographer has made the front view of skull A about an eighth of an inch too narrow (with, of course, a corresponding deficiency in height), so that the tendency to roundness of this skull is not quite sufficiently shown, and the proportion of its height to its length is reduced, in the plate. I am not a craniologist, and so I do not attempt to discuss the more detailed points of interest which arise in connection with these skulls.A good idea of the somewhat varying characters of the general physiques and features of the people will be obtained from my plates; but there are a few of these plates which I may mention here.The people shown in Plates5,6,7,8,9and16may, I think, be regarded as fairly typical, and I would draw attention to the somewhat Melanesian tendency of feature which is disclosed by the faces of the man in Plate6, the young man in the middle in Plate7and the fourth and sixth men from the left in Plate9; also to the great diversity shown in Plate9. The man shown in Plate10, with his thick and strong musculardevelopment, is of a type which is occasionally seen, but which is, I believe, unusual. The two men figured in Plates11and12are, I think, specially interesting. The one to the right, with his somewhat backward sloping forehead, and slightly arched nose, shows a distinct tendency towards the type of the Western Papuan, to which I have already referred. The other one is in general shape of head and appearance of features not unlike some of the dwarf people found by the recent expedition into Dutch New Guinea (see the man to the left in Plate4of the page of illustrations inThe Illustrated London Newsfor September 2, 1911), and indeed there is almost an Australian tendency in his face. It is noticeable that he has a beard and moustache, which is quite unusual among the Mafulu. A somewhat similar type of face may be noticed in one or two of the other plates.Character and Temperament.It is difficult to speak with any degree of definiteness on this question. It must be borne in mind that the Mafulu people have been very little in touch with white people, the missionaries, who have only been there since 1905, and on rare occasions a Government official or scientific traveller, being almost the only white men whom the bulk of them have ever seen; and they have been but slightly affected by the outside influences which for some years past have been constantly brought to bear upon the natives of the adjoining coast line and the people of the Mekeo plains; so that comparisons of these people with their more up-to-dateneighbours as regards their relative natural characters may well be in some respects misleading.Subject, however, to this caution I would say that they are lazy and easy-going (though not so much so as the Roro and Mekeo people), lively, excitable, cheerful, merry, fairly intelligent (this being judged rather from the young people), very superstitious, brave, with much power of enduring pain, cruel, not more revengeful perhaps than is usual among uncivilised natives, friendly one with another, not quarrelsome, but untrustworthy and not over-faithful even in their dealings with one another, though honest as regards boundaries and property rights and in the sense of not stealing from one another within their own communities (this being regarded as a most shameful offence), and of very loose sexual morality.A difference between them and the Mekeo and Roro natives is that they appear to be not so conservative as the latter, being more ready to abandon old traditions and adopt new ideas; though this characteristic is one which shows itself in the young people rather than in the elders with their formed habits.
Themapappended to this volume is (with the exception of the red lines and red lettering upon it) a reproduction of a portion of the map relating to the explorations and surveys of Dr. Strong, Mr. Monckton and Captain Barton, which was published in theGeographical Journalfor September, 1908, and the use of which has been kindly permitted me by the Royal Geographical Society. I have eliminated the red route lines which appear in the original map, so as to avoid confusion with the red lines which I have added. The unbroken red lines and the red lettering upon my map are copied from a map, also kindly placed at my disposal, which has been recently prepared by Father Fillodean of the Mission of the Sacred Heart, and these lines mark roughly what the Fathers of the Mission believe to be the boundaries of the several linguistic areas within the district covered by their map. It will be observedthat some of these lines are not continued so as to surround and complete the definition of the areas which they indicate; but this defect is unavoidable, as the Fathers’ map only covered a relatively small area, and even in that map the lines were not all carried to its margin. It will also be noticed that, though the Fathers introduce the two names Oru Lopiku and Boboi as being linguistically distinct, they have not indicated the boundary line between the two areas. Father Egedi, however, informed me that this boundary passes along the ridge of hills south of the Ufafa river as far as Mt. Eleia, and thence along the Ukalama river to the Kuni boundary. The Ukalama river is not shown in the Geographical Society’s map; but I may say that it is shown in the Fathers’ map as rising in Mt. Eleia, and flowing thence in a south-easterly direction, and so joining the St. Joseph river close to Dilava. The broken red line upon my map does not appear in the Fathers’ map, but has been added by me to indicate what, I understand, the Fathers believe to be a continued boundary, so far as ascertained, of the Fuyuge linguistic area, called by them the Mafulu area, to which I am about to draw attention.
The term Mafulu is the Kuni pronunciation of Mambule, which is the name, as used by themselves, of the people who live in a group of villages within and near the north-westerly corner of the area of the Fuyuge-speaking people, whose Papuan language, so far as ascertained, appears, subject to local dialectal differences, to be the same, and may, I was informed,be regarded as one common language throughout the Fuyuge area.
The Fathers of the Mission have adopted the name Mafulu in a wider sense, as including all the people with whom they have come in contact of the Fuyuge-speaking area; and, though my investigations, which form the subject-matter of this book, have been conducted only in the neighbourhood of Mafulu itself, I was assured that, so far as the Fathers have been able to ascertain, all these Fuyuge people not only have similar languages, but also are substantially similar in physique and in culture. My observations concerning the Mafulu people may therefore, if this statement is correct, be regarded as applying, not only to the inhabitants of the portion of the north-westerly corner of the Fuyuge area in which the Mafulu group of villages is placed, but to those of the whole of the north-westerly portion of the area, and generally in a greater or less degree of accuracy to those of the northerly and north-easterly parts of the area, and possibly the southerly ones also.
The boundaries of this Fuyuge-speaking area can hardly be regarded as definitely ascertained; and the discrepancies, even as regards the courses of the rivers and the positions of the mountains, which appear in the few available maps make it difficult to deal with the question. The area, so far as actually ascertained by the Fathers of the Mission, roughly speaking, covers, and seems to extend also some distance to the south or south-west of a triangle, the western apex of which is the junction of the river Kea with theriver Aduala (a tributary of the St. Joseph),1whose north-eastern apex is Mt. Albert Edward, and whose south-eastern apex is Mt. Scratchley. It includes the valley of the Aduala river and its streams (except those flowing into it from the north in the region of the western apex of the triangle) within its northern boundary, and the valley of the upper Vanapa river and its rivers and streams in the neighbourhood of its eastern boundary; but this eastern boundary has been found to extend also so as to include the upper valley of the river Chirima. How far the area extends to the south or south-west of the triangle above mentioned appears to be uncertain.
The linguistic area to the north of the Mafulu or Fuyuge people is that of the Ambo people, who are somewhat similar in appearance to the Mafulu, and whose language is also Papuan, and, though differing from the Mafulu language, is, I was told, somewhat similar to it in grammatical construction and as regards a few of its words. The area to the west is that of theKuni people, whose language is Melanesian, but whose ordinary modes of life are, I was informed, more like those of the Mafulu than are those of the Papuan-speaking Ambo. The areas to the east and south cannot be so definitely stated, but are dealt with below.
As regards these Ambo people I may, in view of divergences of names which appear in maps, explain that Ambo is a contraction of Ambore, and is the name given to the people by their Mafulu neighbours, whilst Afoa is the name given to them by the Kuni people, and is adopted in the Geographical Society’s map.2As regards the Kuni people, their name is the one adopted by themselves.
Concerning the boundaries of the Fuyuge linguistic area as above indicated, and the people whose districts adjoin that area, I propose here to draw attention to four names, and to refer to some observations bearing on the subject of the probable Fuyuge boundary which are to be found in existing literature.
The term Kovio, though primarily the name of Mt. Yule, and properly applicable to the people living in the neighbourhood of that mountain, is now, I think, often used to express all the mountain tribes of the hinterland of the Mekeo and Pokau, and perhaps the Kabadi, districts. But the use of this name has not, I believe, been generally associated with any question of linguistics.
The area in the map which is called by the FathersBoboi is occupied by people whose language, I was told by the Fathers, is Papuan, but is distinct from the languages of the Ambo and the Fuyuge areas.
Kamaweka is a name which appears in several of Dr. Seligmann’s publications. It seems to have been originally used by Captain Barton to designate the natives of the district of which Inavaurene, to the north-east of the Mekeo plains, is the centre, but to have been afterwards regarded as a somewhat more general term; and I think Dr. Seligmann uses it in a very general sense, almost, if not quite, equivalent to the wide application above referred to of the term Kovio, and which might include the Papuan-speaking Boboi and Ambo people, and even perhaps the people of the northern Mafulu villages.3But here again the use of the name has, I think, no reference to linguistics.
If the Fathers’ linguistic boundary lines are substantially correct, each of the two terms Kovio and Kamaweka, as now used, would appear to cover more than one linguistic area; and in any case these terms seem to have widened and to have become somewhat indefinite. It will be seen on reference to the map and to Father Egedi’s information as to the Oru Lopiku and Boboi boundaries that both Mt. Yule and Inavaurene are within the area which the Fathers call Oru Lopiku, but that Inavaurene is not far fromtheir Boboi area. I suggest that it would be convenient for the present, pending further investigation and delimitation on the spot, and until we know something of the difference between the languages of the Oru Lopiku and Boboi people, to adopt the term Kovio as a general name for, and confine it to, the two areas Boboi and Oru Lopiku; though for linguistic purposes the names Boboi and Oru Lopiku, which at present indicate very little to us, may eventually be accepted and come into general use.
The Koiari people of the foothills and lateral spurs behind the Motu area, also referred to from time to time in Dr. Seligmann’s writings, must be eastern next door neighbours of the Fuyuge-speaking people, the western boundary of these Koiari being stated by him to be the Vanapa river,4and they being in fact regarded by him as being the eastern neighbours of the natives of “the mountains inland of Mekeo Nara and Kabadi,”5and being referred to by him as being the people from whose district the Kamaweka and Kuni are reached by “passing westward”—the word used is “eastward,” but this is obviously a printer’s error—“in the mountains, keeping roughly parallel with the coast.”6
Turning to the question of the Fuyuge boundary, Dr. Strong says that the Fuyuge people occupy the upper waters of the St. Joseph river,7and he is quoted by Dr. Seligmann as having stated that the Afoalanguage “is spoken in the villages on Mt. Pizoko and the northern slopes of Mt. Davidson,” and that “the Afoa villages lie to the north of the Fuyuge-speaking communities, stretching westward for an unknown distance behind Mt. Davidson.”8If the information given to me verbally by the Fathers of the Mission of the Sacred Heart and the red linguistic boundary lines roughly drawn by them, and introduced into my map, be correct, these statements require modification, for according to the Fathers the Mafulu or Fuyuge-speaking area does not include any part of the St. Joseph river, as its extreme north-westerly corner lies to the east of the junction—close to the boundary line between the Afoa (Ambo) and the Kuni areas—of the rivers Alabula and Aduala, and Mt. Pizoko is within the Fuyuge area, and not within that of the Afoa, and Mt. Davidson is within the Boboi area. I think that, though the Fathers’ lines are admittedly not exact, they and the information supplied by the Fathers to me are likely to be more trustworthy in these respects, especially as regards boundaries near to the actual Mafulu villages, than the earlier statements of Dr. Strong, as they are the outcome of recent and careful investigation; and, as regards Mt. Pizoko, I may mention that Dr. Strong himself seems to have subsequently regarded that mountain as being within the Mafulu district,9which brings it into the Fuyuge area.
The inclusion of the upper valley of the riverChirima within the Fuyuge or Mafulu-speaking area is perhaps surprising, as this valley is separated from the general Fuyuge area by one of the southern ridges of Mt. Albert Edward, and more or less so by the ridges of Mt. Stone Wigg and the Wharton range, and as the Chirima is a tributary flowing into the Mambare river, which is one of the great watercourses of Northern New Guinea. The Mafulu Fathers, however, had no doubt as to the correctness of the inclusion, which seems to open out the possibility of some, at all events, of the Fuyuge people having northern associations; and indeed Monseigneur de Boismenu told me that he believed that the Mafulu people were in touch with Northern New Guinea, and got some of their shell ornaments, or the shells from which they were made, from the northern coast.
It is interesting, therefore, to turn for the purpose of comparison to the report of Mr. Monckton’s expedition to Mt. Albert Edward by way of the Upper Chirima valley in 190610and the illustrations accompanying it, with which I incorporate a description of the people of this valley given to Dr. Seligmann by Mr. Money, who was with Mr. Monckton.11
From these it appears that the Upper Chirima people are short in stature and sturdily built. Both sexes wear the perineal band, the front of which is made (I am not sure whether this applies to women as well as to men) to bulge out by padding. In some cases the men’s hair is tied up in a bunch with string,and in others it is bound up in various styles with native cloth. Some of the men have their hair done up in small plaits over the forehead. All the above descriptions, except that of the padding of the band, are applicable to the Mafulu. Some of the Chirima houses have a curious apse-like roof projection over the front platform, which is a specially distinctive feature of a Mafulu house, and one with this projection figured by Mr. Monckton is indistinguishable from a typical Mafulu house. The Chirima people place the bodies of their dead on raised platforms, and apparently sometimes put the body of an infant on the platform erection of an adult, but below the latter. This also is a practice of the Mafulu; and, though the latter people confine platform burial (if such it may be called) to chiefs and their families and important persons, it is possible that some such limitation of the custom exists in the Chirima valley also, but did not come under Mr. Monckton’s notice. A burial platform figured by him might well be a Mafulu burial platform, except that the curious cone-shaped receptacle for the child is a form for which I cannot vouch as regards the Mafulu. The Chirima have a special and peculiar form of netting, which Mr. Monckton’s illustration shows to be identical with the special form of Mafulu netting. On the other hand, as regards the Chirima weapons, implements and utensils, a comparison of Mr. Monckton’s verbal descriptions and figures with what I have seen in Mafulu, and describe in this book, leads me to the conclusion that, though many of these are similar to those of Mafulu,some of them are different. As examples of this I may say that the drill implements of the Chirima people are very similar to, and their stone cloth-beaters appear to be identical with, those used by the Mafulu; whilst on the other hand their war bows are much longer,12and their method of producing fire seems to be totally different; also they apparently have bull-roarers, which to the best of my knowledge are unknown among the Mafulu. Again some of the Chirima weapons, as figured by Mr. Monckton, disclose ideas of artistic design, including that of the curved line and a rude representation of a man, which I have not met with among the Mafulu. As regards this last point I draw attention to Mr. Monckton’s figures of carving on a bow and on wooden clubs. I think, however, that in such matters as these local differences might well arise between people who are really more or less identical, especially if their respective districts are on opposite sides of the main mountain range of the country, and still more so if the people of one of the districts (in the present case I refer to the Chirima people) may perhaps have been subject to the influence of other people beyond them. As to this latter point, however, I should say that these Chirima people seem to be, so far as dress, ornaments, &c., are concerned, much nearer to the Mafulu than they are to the natives of the Mambare river itself, as described by Sir William Macgregor.13It is curiousalso that the dogs of the Chirima people are not yellow dingoes, but are black and white, as is the case in Mafulu.
I notice that Dr. Seligmann suggests that these Chirima valley people are related to the natives of the neighbourhood of Mt. Yule,14a statement which, though probably intended broadly, is in accord with the suggestion that they are connected with the Mafulu-speaking people.
The natives of Mt. Scratchley (apparently the eastern or south-eastern side), visited by Sir William Macgregor in 1896, appear from his description of them15to show a few points of resemblance to the Mafulu people. In particular I refer to their “dark bronze” colour, to the wearing by women of the perineal band (to which, however, is added a mantle and “in most cases” a grass petticoat, which is not done in Mafulu), to the absence of tattooing or cicatrical ornamentation, to their “large earrings made out of tails of lizards covered by narrow straps of palm leaves dyed yellow” (which, though not correctly descriptive of the Mafulu earring, is apparently something like it), to their use of pigs’ tails as ear ornaments, to their plaiting of the hair and the decoration of the plaited hair with teeth and shells, to their small charm bags and to the shortness of their bows. Also to the construction of their houses, with the roof carried down to the ground, with a fireplace about2 feet wide extending down the centre of the building from one end to the other, and having an inclined floor on each side, and especially to the curious apse-like roof projections in front of these houses (Dr. Haddon calls them “pent roofs”16), Sir William’s figure of which is, like that of the Chirima villages, identical, or nearly so, with that of a Mafulu house. But Sir William’s description of the physique of these Mt. Scratchley people and other matters make it clear, I think, that they belong to a type different from that of the Mafulu, though they must be next door neighbours of the Fuyuge-speaking people. Dr. Seligmann, in commenting upon this description of these people, expresses the opinion that they are Papuo-Melanesians.17
The natives in the region of Mt. Musgrave and Mt. Knutsford, as described by Mr. Thomson,18appear, at all events so far as dress is concerned, to be utterly different from the Mafulu.
Dr. Seligmann states that Dr. Strong has informed him that the southern boundary of the Fuyuge-speaking area is the Kabadi country,19and he had previously referred to Korona, immediately behind the Kabadi and Doura districts, as being within the area,20and, indeed, the Geographical Society’s map shows the Fuyuge area as at all events extending as far south as Korona. I do not know how far inland the Kabadiand Doura people extend; but I may say that the Mafulu Fathers expressed grave doubt as to the extension of the Fuyuge area so far south as is indicated by the map.
If the Fuyuge area does in fact reach the Kabadi boundary, and if my notes on the Mafulu people are, as suggested, broadly descriptive of the natives of the whole Fuyuge area, there must be a very sudden and sharp differentiation, as the Kabadi people are apparently an offshoot from Mekeo,21with apparently other Papuo-Melanesian blood (especially Roro) introduced.22
The contour and appearance of the country in the actual Mafulu district of the Fuyuge area is strikingly different from that of the immediately adjoining Kuni country, the sharp steep ridges and narrow deep-cut valleys of the latter, with their thick unbroken covering of almost impenetrable forest, changing to higher mountain ranges with lateral ridges among them, and with frequent gentle undulating slopes and wider and more open valleys; while, interspersed with the forests, are small patches and great stretches of grass land, sometimes thinly covered or scattered with timber and sometimes quite open and devoid of trees.23And thiscondition continues, I was told, over the greater part of the triangular area above referred to.
Plates1and2give, I think, a fair illustration of what I mean, the steep contours and thickly wooded character of the foreground and nearer middle distance shown by Plate1being typical Kuni scenery, and the more open nature of the country displayed by Plate2and the comparative freedom from forest of its foreground being typical of the higher uplands of Mafulu.24
It will be noticed that the physical character of the Mafulu country is more favourable to continued occupation than is that of the Kuni country; and it is a fact that the Mafulu people are not so restless and ready to move as are the Kuni folk; and, even when they do migrate, it is generally to a spot comparatively near to their old villages.
The geological formation of the lower hills on which the actual Mafulu villages are placed and the intervening valleys is partly limestone; and I was told that limestone formation was also found further to the east.
Throughout this book I shall use the term “Mafulu” as including, not only the little group of villages near the north-westerly corner of the Fuyuge linguistic area actually known by that name, but also the other groups of Fuyuge villages in the north-westernportion of that area; and, as above indicated, it is believed by the Fathers of the Mission that I should be substantially correct if I included the whole of the northern and north-eastern, and probably the southern portions of the known part of that area, and possibly the entire area.
1The Geographical Society’s map used by me is somewhat confusing as regards the upper reaches of the St. Joseph or Angabunga river and the rivers flowing into and forming it. The Fathers’ map makes the St. Joseph river commence under that name at the confluence, at a point a little to the west of 8° 30′ S. Lat. and 147° E. Long., of the river Alabula (called in one of its upper parts Loloipa), flowing from the north, and the river Aduala, flowing from Mt. Albert Edward in the north-east; and this arrangement, which is practically in accord with a map appended to the British New GuineaAnnual Reportfor June, 1900, is, I think, probably the most suitable and correct one. The Aduala is the river the upper part of which is in the Geographical Society’s map called Angabunga. The Fathers’ map shows the river Kea flowing into the Aduala at a distance of about two miles above the confluence of the latter with the Alabula; but, according to the Report map, this distance is about 12 miles.2Note the change from the Mafulu (Papuan) pronunciationMambuleto the Kuni (Melanesian) pronunciationMafuluand the similar change from the MafuluAmboto the KuniAjoa.3See Dr. Seligmann’s “Hunterian Lecture” in theLancetfor February 17, 1906, p. 427; Seligmann and Strong in theGeographical Journalfor March, 1906, pp. 233 and 236; also Dr. Seligmann’s “Classification of the Natives of British New Guinea” in theJournal of the Royal Anthropological Institutefor December, 1909, p. 329.4Melanesians of British New Guinea, p. 29.5Ibid.p. 31.6Lancet, February 17, 1906, p. 427.7Geographical Journalfor September, 1908, p. 274.8Melanesians of British New Guinea, p. 32.9British New GuineaAnnual Reportfor June, 1906, p. 29.10British New GuineaAnnual Reportfor June 30, 1906, pp. 85 to 93.11Melanesians of British New Guinea, p. 33.12Apparently bows and arrows are not found among the tribes of the Lower Mambare river (Annual Reportfor June, 1897, Appendix C, p. 7.)13Annual Reportfor June, 1894, p. 32.14Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institutefor December, 1909, p. 329.15Annual Reportfor June, 1897, Appendix C, p. 7.16Geographical Journalfor October, 1900, p. 422.17Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institutefor December, 1909, p. 330.18British New Guinea, p. 94.19Melanesians of British New Guinea, p. 32.20Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institutefor December, 1909, p. 329.21Seligmann and Strong—Geographical Journalfor March, 1906, p. 232.22Seligmann’sMelanesians of British New Guinea, p. 27.23Dr. Strong has referred (Geographical Journalfor September, 1908, p. 272) to the considerable areas of open grass country at the source of the St. Joseph river; and in his remarks which appeared in theAnnual Reportfor June, 1906, p. 28, he referred to the same matter, and spoke of the valleys being for the most part less steep than those of the Kuni district.24I must state that Plate2represents a scene taken from a spot near to Deva-deva, which, though close to what is regarded as the boundary between the Kuni and Mafulu areas, is in fact just within the former. The general appearance of the scenery is, however, distinctly Mafulu.
1The Geographical Society’s map used by me is somewhat confusing as regards the upper reaches of the St. Joseph or Angabunga river and the rivers flowing into and forming it. The Fathers’ map makes the St. Joseph river commence under that name at the confluence, at a point a little to the west of 8° 30′ S. Lat. and 147° E. Long., of the river Alabula (called in one of its upper parts Loloipa), flowing from the north, and the river Aduala, flowing from Mt. Albert Edward in the north-east; and this arrangement, which is practically in accord with a map appended to the British New GuineaAnnual Reportfor June, 1900, is, I think, probably the most suitable and correct one. The Aduala is the river the upper part of which is in the Geographical Society’s map called Angabunga. The Fathers’ map shows the river Kea flowing into the Aduala at a distance of about two miles above the confluence of the latter with the Alabula; but, according to the Report map, this distance is about 12 miles.
2Note the change from the Mafulu (Papuan) pronunciationMambuleto the Kuni (Melanesian) pronunciationMafuluand the similar change from the MafuluAmboto the KuniAjoa.
3See Dr. Seligmann’s “Hunterian Lecture” in theLancetfor February 17, 1906, p. 427; Seligmann and Strong in theGeographical Journalfor March, 1906, pp. 233 and 236; also Dr. Seligmann’s “Classification of the Natives of British New Guinea” in theJournal of the Royal Anthropological Institutefor December, 1909, p. 329.
4Melanesians of British New Guinea, p. 29.
5Ibid.p. 31.
6Lancet, February 17, 1906, p. 427.
7Geographical Journalfor September, 1908, p. 274.
8Melanesians of British New Guinea, p. 32.
9British New GuineaAnnual Reportfor June, 1906, p. 29.
10British New GuineaAnnual Reportfor June 30, 1906, pp. 85 to 93.
11Melanesians of British New Guinea, p. 33.
12Apparently bows and arrows are not found among the tribes of the Lower Mambare river (Annual Reportfor June, 1897, Appendix C, p. 7.)
13Annual Reportfor June, 1894, p. 32.
14Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institutefor December, 1909, p. 329.
15Annual Reportfor June, 1897, Appendix C, p. 7.
16Geographical Journalfor October, 1900, p. 422.
17Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institutefor December, 1909, p. 330.
18British New Guinea, p. 94.
19Melanesians of British New Guinea, p. 32.
20Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institutefor December, 1909, p. 329.
21Seligmann and Strong—Geographical Journalfor March, 1906, p. 232.
22Seligmann’sMelanesians of British New Guinea, p. 27.
23Dr. Strong has referred (Geographical Journalfor September, 1908, p. 272) to the considerable areas of open grass country at the source of the St. Joseph river; and in his remarks which appeared in theAnnual Reportfor June, 1906, p. 28, he referred to the same matter, and spoke of the valleys being for the most part less steep than those of the Kuni district.
24I must state that Plate2represents a scene taken from a spot near to Deva-deva, which, though close to what is regarded as the boundary between the Kuni and Mafulu areas, is in fact just within the former. The general appearance of the scenery is, however, distinctly Mafulu.
The Mafulu people are of short stature, though perhaps a trifle taller than the Kuni.
They are as a rule fairly strong and muscular in build, the women in particular having very strongly developed thighs; but, speaking generally, their limbs are more slender, and their general development is slighter, than is usually the case among the Roro and Mekeo people.
They appear to be usually mesaticephalic, but to have a very marked tendency to brachycephaly.
Their noses seemed to me to be generally strong, and of prominent size, varying considerably in width of bridge, but usually having rather widely distending nostrils; and sometimes the width of the nose was equal to its length, or nearly so.
Referring to the above matters, the following are the results of twenty measurements of Mafulu men. These were obtained from men of upwards of six different communities or groups of villages, so as to avoid the possible misleading character of measurements made in only one village or group of villages, in which some family relationship between the personsmeasured might militate against the true average character of the figures obtained.
Analysing these figures, we get the following results:—
There are a few points in connection with these figures to which I would draw attention. The very short man (No. 20—height, 147 cm.) has a cranial index of 75.1, on the border line between dolichocephaly and mesaticephaly. He has also a short nose (4.6 cm.), and is one of the two with the narrowest noses (3.8 c.m.). The very tall man (No. 8—height, 163 cm.) has a long head (19.4 cm.), and the lowest dolichocephalic cranial index of 72.7, and is one of two with the longest noses (5.6 cm.). The other very tall man (No. 10—height, 163 cm.) has one of the two shortest heads (17.4 cm.), and the highest brachycephalic cranial index of 84.8, and has a long nose (5.5 cm.) The man (No. 2) whose nasal index is 100 has the mesaticephalic cranial index of 78.3 (almost the average index). The other man (No. 4) whose nasal index is 100 has a head of exactly the average length (18.5 cm.) and the greatest breadth (15.4 cm.), and the brachycephalic cranial index of 81.2. The man (No. 17) with the lowest nasal index of 71.4 has a very short head (17.7 cm.), and the brachycephalic cranial index of 82.2.
The following tables, however, illustrate the fact that the measurements of these twenty men do not appear to indicate, as regards them, any markedconnection between stature, cranial index, and nasal index.
Order in stature (beginning with the shortest):
20—1—19—6—7—17—5—15—18—2—3—11—16—4—12—13—14—9—8—10.
Order in progress upwards of cranial indices:
8—13—3—6–20—5—ll—7—1—16—18—2—14—9—15—4—12—17—19—10.
Order in progress upwards of nasal indices:
17—9—6—8—15—19—3—13—7—16—20—11—10—14—18—12—1—5—2—4.
I brought home three Mafulu skulls, which Dr. Keith kindly had measured at the Royal College of Surgeons, with the following results3:—
It will be observed that the lowest of these three cranial indices is a trifle higher than the lowest of those of the head measurements, that the highest of them is much lower than the highest of those of the head measurements, and that their average (76.8) is a little below the average of those of the head measurements.
Dr. Keith had further measurements made of theseskulls from the point of view of prognathism and characters of noses and orbits, with the following results:
Dr. Keith, referring to these skulls, says that they disclose relatively small brains, the cranial capacity of A being 1,230 c.c., that of B being 1,330 c.c., and that of C being 1,130 c.c. He compares these figures with the average cranial capacity of the male European, which he puts at 1,500 c.c.
The eyes of the Mafulu people are dark brown and very bright. I never saw among them those oblique eyes, almost recalling the Mongolian, which, according to Dr. Seligmann, are found, though rarely only, on the coast,4and of which I saw many instances among the Kuni people.
Their lips are usually not so thick as are those of the Mekeo and Roro people, and are generally finer and more delicate in shape.
In view of their Papuan language I kept a sharp look out for the curious backward sloping foreheads and projecting brow ridges and Jewish-looking noses which are so often found among the Western Papuans; but, although I saw a few examples of these, they were rare, and I did not observe anynoticeable tendency in these directions in the faces of the people generally.5
A curious characteristic with them is the big toe, which is usually much developed, and projects outwards at a larger angle than is the case with the Roro and Mekeo people, and is much used for holding on to roots, &c., whilst travelling along their rough mountain paths.
Their general colour is a dark sooty brown, a trifle darker, perhaps, than that of the Kuni people, and contrasting forcibly with the varying shades of chocolate which you find among the Roro and Mekeo people. They are smooth-skinned.
Their hair is frizzly, and generally dark brown, often quite dark, almost even approaching to black, and sometimes perhaps quite black. But it is frequently lighter; and indeed I was often, when observing men’s hair lit up by sunshine, impressed by the fact that its brown colour was not even what we should in Europe call dark.6I often saw marked variations in the depth of hair colour on the head of the same individual. I saw no examples of the comparatively straight or curly type of hair which is found in the Pokau district and elsewhere.7
Plate3gives front and side views of the mesaticephalic (almost brachycephalic) skull A and Plate4gives similar views of the dolichocephalic skull C. All the photographs were made as nearly as possible exactly half the sizes of the originals; but the photographer has made the front view of skull A about an eighth of an inch too narrow (with, of course, a corresponding deficiency in height), so that the tendency to roundness of this skull is not quite sufficiently shown, and the proportion of its height to its length is reduced, in the plate. I am not a craniologist, and so I do not attempt to discuss the more detailed points of interest which arise in connection with these skulls.
A good idea of the somewhat varying characters of the general physiques and features of the people will be obtained from my plates; but there are a few of these plates which I may mention here.
The people shown in Plates5,6,7,8,9and16may, I think, be regarded as fairly typical, and I would draw attention to the somewhat Melanesian tendency of feature which is disclosed by the faces of the man in Plate6, the young man in the middle in Plate7and the fourth and sixth men from the left in Plate9; also to the great diversity shown in Plate9. The man shown in Plate10, with his thick and strong musculardevelopment, is of a type which is occasionally seen, but which is, I believe, unusual. The two men figured in Plates11and12are, I think, specially interesting. The one to the right, with his somewhat backward sloping forehead, and slightly arched nose, shows a distinct tendency towards the type of the Western Papuan, to which I have already referred. The other one is in general shape of head and appearance of features not unlike some of the dwarf people found by the recent expedition into Dutch New Guinea (see the man to the left in Plate4of the page of illustrations inThe Illustrated London Newsfor September 2, 1911), and indeed there is almost an Australian tendency in his face. It is noticeable that he has a beard and moustache, which is quite unusual among the Mafulu. A somewhat similar type of face may be noticed in one or two of the other plates.
It is difficult to speak with any degree of definiteness on this question. It must be borne in mind that the Mafulu people have been very little in touch with white people, the missionaries, who have only been there since 1905, and on rare occasions a Government official or scientific traveller, being almost the only white men whom the bulk of them have ever seen; and they have been but slightly affected by the outside influences which for some years past have been constantly brought to bear upon the natives of the adjoining coast line and the people of the Mekeo plains; so that comparisons of these people with their more up-to-dateneighbours as regards their relative natural characters may well be in some respects misleading.
Subject, however, to this caution I would say that they are lazy and easy-going (though not so much so as the Roro and Mekeo people), lively, excitable, cheerful, merry, fairly intelligent (this being judged rather from the young people), very superstitious, brave, with much power of enduring pain, cruel, not more revengeful perhaps than is usual among uncivilised natives, friendly one with another, not quarrelsome, but untrustworthy and not over-faithful even in their dealings with one another, though honest as regards boundaries and property rights and in the sense of not stealing from one another within their own communities (this being regarded as a most shameful offence), and of very loose sexual morality.
A difference between them and the Mekeo and Roro natives is that they appear to be not so conservative as the latter, being more ready to abandon old traditions and adopt new ideas; though this characteristic is one which shows itself in the young people rather than in the elders with their formed habits.